Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

[Orange_Vol1321]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

They lied on him and changed his 302s.

That's a bold strategy cotton.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Insert blue balls comment here

Waiting on EL to come around for that.

 

[Mick]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

I was wondering if they would allow it.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

They want to throw an American hero in prison and at the same time are so sad when a terrorist who has killed and hurt so many American is killed. They certainly are a worthless bunch

 

[RockyTop85]

I was wondering if they would allow it.

In TN it’s totally within the Judge’s discretion. That probably mirrors the federal system where they are even less prone to want to do stuff like this and:
A) the change in the prosecution’s ask is justifiable based on changing sentencing factors (Flynn no longer accepting responsibility) and
B) Judge just got done denying a motion where Powell called the prosecution low down dirty cheaters. Clearly he doesn’t think that claim has much merit.

I’d expect another Hail Mary like a motion for the judge to recuse, next.

 

[AM64]

Perhaps, but if the material is time sensitive and prosecution at the time would do more harm than good, there's no reason not to prosecute later. Take the leaker's means away immediately, and nail him to the wall later. It's somewhat twisted logic to let FISA courts do their work in the dark - in the name of security, but we still demand open trial for a treasonous POS, so some skate because of the damage an open court would cause.

 

[AM64]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

That would be slightly better than having to keep looking at Currie.

 

[ajvol01]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

Saved for posterity

 

[RockyTop85]

Saved for posterity

You think he will be allowed to withdraw his plea?

 

[ajvol01]

You think he will be allowed to withdraw his plea?

No idea, probably not. I’m terrible at predictions.

Just wanted to make sure this isn’t lost

In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

 

[AM64]

You think he will be allowed to withdraw his plea?

I've read legal decisions that used what another judge was perhaps thinking in generating a previous decision to think that a defendant should be able to change his plea if he has reason to think that someone might actually consider that he made the plea in the face of false statements by law enforcement or prosecuting body. If the process wasn't intended to be fair, then why the Miranda warning? Is the concept that you have some rights supposed to mean something or just plant a false sense of security? Inherent with that, the defendant should have the right to be told the truth and not led to believe false statements or otherwise coerced during interrogation. To as someone facing the "same" question multiple times in different ways as a means to entrap him over an ambiguous rephrasing, understanding, or fatigue and then being offered a deal to remove or lessen his "perjury" cheapens the concept of justice and should be criminal in and of itself.

 

[RockyTop85]

No idea, probably not. I’m terrible at predictions.

Just wanted to make sure this isn’t lost

Even better. Being held accountable for bad predictions by the QAnon fanatic would be more thoroughly shaming than a perpetual Trump avatar.

 

[0nelilreb]

Even better. Being held accountable for bad predictions by the QAnon fanatic would be more thoroughly shaming than a perpetual Trump avatar.

If you lose , rest assured you’ll be reminded of both

 

[37L1]

If When you lose , rest assured you’ll be reminded of both

FYP

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Neocon Sell Out Never Trumper Joe Scarborough has lost what little mind he's got

Rev. Joe Scarborough? Children, Grandchildren of Trump Defenders Will Be Punished!

Joe lost it a long time ago.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

Oh that's harsh Rocky.

 

[RockyTop85]

I've read legal decisions that used what another judge was perhaps thinking in generating a previous decision to think that a defendant should be able to change his plea if he has reason to think that someone might actually consider that he made the plea in the face of false statements by law enforcement or prosecuting body. If the process wasn't intended to be fair, then why the Miranda warning? Is the concept that you have some rights supposed to mean something or just plant a false sense of security? Inherent with that, the defendant should have the right to be told the truth and not led to believe false statements or otherwise coerced during interrogation. To as someone facing the "same" question multiple times in different ways as a means to entrap him over an ambiguous rephrasing, understanding, or fatigue and then being offered a deal to remove or lessen his "perjury" cheapens the concept of justice and should be criminal in and of itself.

I don’t really understand what the first part means about what a judge was perhaps thinking. I’d need more context.

In any event, the judge already ruled that, what I think I’m understanding you to say, didn’t happen, here:

“Sullivan reviewed Flynn’s more detailed accusations that misconduct by the FBI, the Justice Department and Mueller’s office raised ethical concerns and cast doubt on his investigation, but he denied defense claims that they warranted tossing out his plea in favor of a trial or dismissal of his case.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

He’s already denied one request to withdraw a plea and, IMO, if proven, what she’s alleging there had more merit than what Powell is saying the government did this time.

She’s baiting the hook for a pardon. That’s pretty much it.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

'Strong' paper trail has John Durham investigating the months before Mueller appointment

 

[ajvol01]

I don’t really understand what the first part means about what a judge was perhaps thinking. I’d need more context.

In any event, the judge already ruled that, what I think I’m understanding you to say, didn’t happen, here:

“Sullivan reviewed Flynn’s more detailed accusations that misconduct by the FBI, the Justice Department and Mueller’s office raised ethical concerns and cast doubt on his investigation, but he denied defense claims that they warranted tossing out his plea in favor of a trial or dismissal of his case.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

He’s already denied one request to withdraw a plea and, IMO, if proven, what she’s alleging there had more merit than what Powell is saying the government did this time.

She’s baiting the hook for a pardon. That’s pretty much it.

Why would Flynn’s defense team’s request of Brady materials be denied?

 

[AM64]

I don’t really understand what the first part means about what a judge was perhaps thinking. I’d need more context.

In any event, the judge already ruled that, what I think I’m understanding you to say, didn’t happen, here:

“Sullivan reviewed Flynn’s more detailed accusations that misconduct by the FBI, the Justice Department and Mueller’s office raised ethical concerns and cast doubt on his investigation, but he denied defense claims that they warranted tossing out his plea in favor of a trial or dismissal of his case.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

He’s already denied one request to withdraw a plea and, IMO, if proven, what she’s alleging there had more merit than what Powell is saying the government did this time.

She’s baiting the hook for a pardon. That’s pretty much it.

I suppose this article covers what I was trying to say

STARE DECISIS AND DEMONSTRABLY ERRONEOUS PRECEDENTS

It does say erroneous precedents, but when two members of a judicial body look at a decision and conclude differently; then obviously one decided the judgment or how it came to be was in error - otherwise, they'd have concluded alike. They may disagree on the wight of different issues (judicial judgement/bias) addressed rather than purely right or wrong ... but there was a personal decision made by both as to agreement with the prior decision. We see that all the time in rulings. The more sinister reason might be political bias. Sotomayor notoriously said that her judgment would likely be different than that of a white male, so as a lower court judge, we would probably have every reason to believe her findings regarding something like illegal border crossings would deviate from that of many other people.

 

[RockyTop85]

I suppose this article covers what I was trying to say

STARE DECISIS AND DEMONSTRABLY ERRONEOUS PRECEDENTS

It does say erroneous precedents, but when two members of a judicial body look at a decision and conclude differently; then obviously one decided the judgment or how it came to be was in error - otherwise, they'd have concluded alike. They may disagree on the wight of different issues (judicial judgement/bias) addressed rather than purely right or wrong ... but there was a personal decision made by both as to agreement with the prior decision. We see that all the time in rulings. The more sinister reason might be political bias. Sotomayor notoriously said that her judgment would likely be different than that of a white male, so as a lower court judge, we would probably have every reason to believe her findings regarding something like illegal border crossings would deviate from that of many other people.

This is an oversimplification but:


Think in terms of a stencil drawing. Trial judge gets to color however he wants within the stencil. The intermediate appellate court looks to see whether he used the right stencil and whether he went outside the lines. Supreme Courts look at whether the shape of the stencil needs to be changed.

It’s very rare that a standard of review invites anyone to easily overrule the trial judge simply because they don’t like the outcome. The court-made law is most often intended to ensure that the trial judge lands within a spectrum of outcomes that will be viewed as reasonable.

In reality, it doesn’t always work that cleanly. Most trial judges simply explain their decisions to fit the stencil but never really followed it. Some appellate courts may decide they don’t like an outcome and say the trial Judge used the wrong stencil just to change the outcome. but as long as what’s on the page stays within the lines, then it’s supposed to be presumed to be reasonable.

For withdrawing a plea, there usually is no stencil. It’s just a blank page. Whatever the judge does is almost always above reproach. And if this judge was inclined to help Flynn out, they could have easily rationalized that on his last try.

(I didn’t read all of it, but what that article is saying is that courts don’t like to change the stencil for a particular issue, once they’ve handed them out the first time. But they will when it’s obvious they made a bad decision.)

 

[AM64]

This is an oversimplification but:


Think in terms of a stencil drawing. Trial judge gets to color however he wants within the stencil. The intermediate appellate court looks to see whether he used the right stencil and whether he went outside the lines. Supreme Courts look at whether the shape of the stencil needs to be changed.

It’s very rare that a standard of review invites anyone to easily overrule the trial judge simply because they don’t like the outcome. The court-made law is most often intended to ensure that the trial judge lands within a spectrum of outcomes that will be viewed as reasonable.

In reality, it doesn’t always work that cleanly. Most trial judges simply explain their decisions to fit the stencil but never really followed it. Some appellate courts may decide they don’t like an outcome and say the trial Judge used the wrong stencil just to change the outcome. but as long as what’s on the page stays within the lines, then it’s supposed to be presumed to be reasonable.

For withdrawing a plea, there usually is no stencil. It’s just a blank page. Whatever the judge does is almost always above reproach. And if this judge was inclined to help Flynn out, they could have easily rationalized that on his last try.

(I didn’t read all of it, but what that article is saying is that courts don’t like to change the stencil for a particular issue, once they’ve handed them out the first time. But they will when it’s obvious they made a bad decision.)

I didn't read the whole article either. I just think some things I see in opinions and their counters stretch the lines of credulity too often. We both know about "judge shopping" to get favored outcomes and why the 9th circuit court can lead to the "correct correction" when others might go astray.

I guess in the end I'm just an anti-authoritarian who believes we should have a fraction of our laws ... just some plainly written do's and don't that are really necessary, and then we wouldn't have all the ambiguity about "crimes" and punishments.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You’re right.

It’s a political move to a) delay sentencing until the second term so Flynn will have a better chance of pardon and b) allow Trump to say Flynn got treated unfairly to justify the pardon.

It has next to no legal merit. In fact, if Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, I’ll sport a Trump avatar for the rest of this site’s existence.

Trump can't pardon him after sentencing?

 

[37L1]

I didn't read the whole article either. I just think some things I see in opinions and their counters stretch the lines of credulity too often. We both know about "judge shopping" to get favored outcomes and why the 9th circuit court can lead to the "correct correction" when others might go astray.

I guess in the end I'm just an anti-authoritarian who believes we should have a fraction of our laws ... just some plainly written do's and don't that are really necessary, and then we wouldn't have all the ambiguity about "crimes" and punishments.

That would put a lot of lawyers out of work, do you expect them to learn to code?

 

[BigOrangeD]

More FAKE News from CNN -- No Surprise